The Instigator
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Bob13
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

How do atheists rationally know truth from fiction?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Bob13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 93250
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

ViceRegent

Con

Atheists love to live under the delusion that they are the guardians of rationality. But how can they hold this title when they cannot even articulate a rational way to know truth from fiction. If they cannot do this, they are literally ignorant and the ignorant cannot guard anything. So, what atheist can give me a rational way atheists know truth from fiction?

Answering this question is the sole purpose for this debate. If you are unable or unwilling to answer this question, do not respond to this debate. Likewise, if you do not believe in reality, believe you make it up or deny it is objective or knowable, or if you do not know how to rationally know truth from fiction, do not respond to this debate. If you are terrified of cross-examination or madly in love with red herrings, do not respond to this debate. If you have responded before, do not respond to this debate. After all, if you had nothing rational to say then, you will having nothing rational to say now.

If all you have is "science", do not respond to this debate, for science relies on the your senses and reason, which begs the question of how you know your senses and reason are valid. Perhaps you can tell me, which is fine, but if the way you validate you senses and reason is with your senses and reason, you lose the debate because that is circular reasoning and circular reasoning is not rational.

if you respond in violation of these rules, you automatically lose the debate
Bob13

Pro

Anyone can rationally know truth from fiction using reason, regardless of whether they believe in God.
Debate Round No. 1
ViceRegent

Con

How do you know you reason is valid?

Putting this question another way, there are delusional people in this world. How do you know you are not one of them?
Bob13

Pro

Reason is valid by definition. The definition of reason is "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways". Thus, using reason, anyone can rationally know truth from fiction.
Debate Round No. 2
ViceRegent

Con

Again, how do you know you are not mentally ill (i.e., delusional)?
Bob13

Pro

I don't, but reason is valid regardless. Delusional people can still use reason, and some have used it to become aware of the fact that they're delusional. Being delusional only changes what you physically perceive.
Debate Round No. 3
ViceRegent

Con

Did this dude just say the reason of the mentally ill is valid? ROFL. I think my opponent for showing us that he, as an atheist, has no way of know truth from fiction and that atheists are delusional. Who is next?
Bob13

Pro

I know I'm not mentally ill in any way that impairs my ability to reason. Just look at my debates, they're proof that I have the ability to use valid reason.

Also, now that I really think about it, the mere fact that you're responding to what I say means that either I'm delusional and you don't really exist, in which case I win the debate by default, or I'm not delusional and I can rationally know truth from fiction. Either way, I win the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
ViceRegent

Con

So he know he is not mentally ill because of his perception ad assessments of his debates. Of course, if he is mentally ill, his perceptions and assessments of his debates hold know value. This dude has simply begged the question, which is to say he has reasoned illogically, which is to say his reason is not valid. He loses.
Bob13

Pro

My opponent has not argued against my assessment of my debates, so my point still stands. Saying my assessment holds no value while not actually providing counterevidence or any reasoning whatsoever is not a valid argument.

Conclusion

Atheists, like every other human being, have the ability to use reason, which by definition is the ability to rationally know truth from fiction. My opponent has not countered any of my main points.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReeThoughts 5 months ago
ReeThoughts
Hi VR, remember me???? ;)
Posted by missmedic 5 months ago
missmedic
VR loses................................................ again..............................................................
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
vice.. you have beliefs.. why ask anyone what they know, when you have forfitted that position yourself.. you have the most defenceless position i can imagine
Posted by Bob13 5 months ago
Bob13
I don't have any authority. I was just requesting that you stop spamming my notifications with comments that aren't necessary.
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
ViceRegent
Bob is so delusion that he thinks he has authority when he is nothing but a mentally ill fool. ROFL.
Posted by Bob13 5 months ago
Bob13
Stop debating in the comments.
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
ViceRegent
Actually I did by exposing the illogical nature of your thinking, but I do not expect a blind man to see.
Posted by Bob13 5 months ago
Bob13
You didn't explain why my assessment of my debates is wrong, you only suggested that it might be wrong but didn't proceed to argue. Regardless, stop debating in the comments. Voters aren't allowed to consider this.
Posted by ViceRegent 5 months ago
ViceRegent
Did this fool just say that exposing the fallacious nature of his reasoning was not a response to his argument? ROFL. He proves once again he is delusional.
Posted by canis 5 months ago
canis
And so we must trust in your god...Amen..Free the dolpins and other gods....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Grandzam 5 months ago
Grandzam
ViceRegentBob13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Provided demonstratably unrefuted arguments.
Vote Placed by ForGrowthOfMind 5 months ago
ForGrowthOfMind
ViceRegentBob13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not apply any counter evidence to support their claims, or that the claims of Pro were inaccurate.